I recalled today the old Wilson Picket hit from my youth, "Ninety-nine and a half just won't do".

From a technology standpoint, that's the gist of the debate, isn't it?

Stephen, CET, states strongly, "They're fixing it." I agree. Considering the late start everyone got, I think that American companies will do extraordinarily well before the January 1 deadline.

But the pessimists are saying, "There will be trouble unless 100% of the companies are 100% compliant."

We know that's not going to happen. So it seems to me that the debate is about the benefit of near compliance.

The pessimists, stating that this problem is unique in history, refer not only to the issue of what needs to be done, but also to the suggested requirement of near perfection.

This is all related to computers.

Much of the discussion on this forum the past few weeks has been not about computers but about the likelihood of a breakdown of society in a given situation. Thus, discussion here of the threat of nuclear war (or high school student unrest) is relevant to the likelihood of societal breakdown even if not relevant to repairing computer code.

Of course, one aspect of the threat of nuclear war is the fear that the nukes will be thrown by soon to be non-compliant Russia and China.

Anyway, I've written this because I invite one and all to disagree with my hypothesis.

-- GA Russell (garussell@russellga.com), May 02, 1999

Answers

What hypothesis ?

-- Yan (no@no.no), May 02, 1999.

I am a 21 year software developer with a couple of years of experienc (delphi,oracle,webstuff,etc) under my belt. Its been my experience so far that even the smallest problems tend to have a cascading effect. So betting on the side of caution I am preparing for TEOTAWKI. I have faith in 'human nature', faith that most people are fucking crazy(pardon the tech. speek). I have noticed how short tempered, or more accurately, insane people have been behaving lately. Most Americans aren't aware of anything going on outside of their little universe, like the fact that our government is becoming the 4th Reich, or All of are national secrets were sold at at a Clnton adminsitration yard sale to the whole world, or the fact that companies like GE, american express, citibank, yada yada, are farming out their y2k remedation to India(you know the country firing off nuclear weapons with the technology they stole from the US while their government is collapsing amidst the discussions of a Russian/China/India alliance. How can anyone be surprised at the ignorance of the american population. I know I am ready. Fuck the stupid people!

-- jp (always@lurking.com), May 02, 1999.

Yan,

Your perspicacity, as always, continues to elude me. Keep trying.

Greenspan said, about Banking, that 99% isn't good enough, it has to be 100%. Transactions need to be foolproof, they need to be accurate and trustworthy.

Computers, in GENERAL, have to be accurate and trustworthy, as they ARE today (by and large).

In 7 months they will NOT WORK PROPERLY. All evidence points to this simple, but elusive (Yan?) fact.

Many banks worldwide will not cut it. Therefore the Banking System by default will not either. There WILL be a cascading effect of unintended consequences hitting humanity in ways not yet even thought of.

The situation in other areas of commerce is possibly not so severe - 100% may not, in most cases, be crucial for survival. But it certainly must be CLOSE to 100% - there is very very little carrying capacity in our JIT (tery) times.

I wrote an online article a while ago in the WRP about there being actually LESS than 180 working days to go to put all these code fixes into place. Look it up. However the fact is that we are now in May, Mayday actually which is quite appropriate, with SUBSTANTIALLY less that 180 working days to go.

This is the bottom line - the US Government knew some time ago what was going to happen on rollover - their policy now is of total abdication of responsibility to the US people regarding contingency planning and emergency preparedness. This is a fact for anyone to see. Perhaps it was the best decision (not my view at all), 280 million souls cannot be mollycoddled by the behemoth that controls our lives now.

Bottom bottom line - it's all up to YOU - take responsibility for yourselves, family and so on. The next seven months will be gone in the blink of an eye and then many of YOU reading this, and thinking, Andy's lost it, will be staring calamity in the face.

But deep down Y2K Prairie Dog, Doomslayer, Poole and all the other know-nothings (for you PROVE it every day), you knew it, didn't you.

-- Andy (2000EOS@prodigy.net), May 02, 1999.

jp --

I'm glad that at 21 you know so much. I, and most of my contemporaries, are well agreed on the fact that at 21 we thought we knew everything, but actually knew very little. How you've escaped this basic fact of life that has been well known by seasoned adults over the centuries is indeed amazing.

Andy --

as is the norm, you show your usual myopia:

"Computers, in GENERAL, have to be accurate and trustworthy, as they ARE today (by and large)." What planet do you live on? Certainly not Earth. Computers are like people: sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. If they worked well all (most of) the time, I'd be out of a job. But I stay real busy, with or without Y2k. Your statement leads me to believe that you've never been in the same building with a computer.

"The US Government knew some time ago what was going to happen on rollover - their policy now is of total abdication of responsibility to the US people regarding contingency planning and emergency preparedness. This is a fact for anyone to see." -- well I don't see that at all, and I'm a part of "anyone". You're an extremist doom-fear-panic monger, that I DO see. Quite clearly. And not one who thinks too much before he posts.

"But deep down Y2K Prairie Dog, Doomslayer, Poole and all the other know-nothings...." -- so the people who don't agree with your wild-eyed Doomer prognostications are know-nothings? Well I agree with them, dude....and I dare say I'd win any intellectual duel with the likes of you, with one cerebral lobe tied behind my back....

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 02, 1999.

"Computers, in GENERAL, have to be accurate and trustworthy, as they ARE today (by and large)." What planet do you live on? Certainly not Earth. Computers are like people: sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. If they worked well all (most of) the time, I'd be out of a job. But I stay real busy, with or without Y2k. Your statement leads me to believe that you've never been in the same building with a computer.

******* Hey, Johnny jerkoff. Read my statement CAREFULLY, as I knew you boneheads would come out of the woodwork to NIT PICK - I think you're too dumb to see the point I'm making. No, I KNOW you're too dumb to see the point...*******

"The US Government knew some time ago what was going to happen on rollover - their policy now is of total abdication of responsibility to the US people regarding contingency planning and emergency preparedness. This is a fact for anyone to see." -- well I don't see that at all, and I'm a part of "anyone". You're an extremist doom- fear-panic monger, that I DO see. Quite clearly. And not one who thinks too much before he posts.

******* The above statement about the US Government is spot on knuckle brain. Why is it that the UK and Canadian Governments are handling the situation TOTALLY differently to Uncle Sam? YOU'RE the idiot who either isn't thinking or too dumb to work things out for yourself. *******

"But deep down Y2K Prairie Dog, Doomslayer, Poole and all the other know-nothings...." -- so the people who don't agree with your wild- eyed Doomer prognostications are know-nothings? Well I agree with them, dude....and I dare say I'd win any intellectual duel with the likes of you, with one cerebral lobe tied behind my back....

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 02, 1999.

******* You've proved my point, you're handle says a lot about you. Gloves are off pal, you couldn't see your own reflection in a mirror. *******

-- Andy (2000EOS@prodigy.net), May 02, 1999.

CL,

Your assertion regarding the reliability of computers is not quite correct. The computer is an extremely reliable device. So reliable that it is used for missile guidance, eye surgery, and various forms of real-time process control. Once the hardware and software are thoroughly debugged, error rates drop to near zero and stay there until a component failure occurs. If this were not true, no one would bother to use such an indeterminate device, as the costs of failure in many applications would generally negate the usefulness of the device.

In fact, the worldwide computing infrastructure has been continuously fine-tuned in this manner, day in and day out, for about 5 decades now. This fine-tuning and reliability did not come about without a certain amount of cost, effort, and periodic, though manageable disruption and, in light of Y2k, it would not be entirely wise to assume its continuance will become a foregone conclusion.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), May 02, 1999.

Nathan,

Your two paragraphs are totally lost on young little - why? - because the moron WORKS IN COMPUTERS AND IS KEPT VERY BUSY THANK YOU VERY MUCH Y2K OR NO Y2K... :)

I wonder if his incompetence has anything to do with how busy his work days are?

I suspect a direct correlation.

-- Andy (2000EOS@prodigy.net), May 02, 1999.

CL commented:

"with one cerebral lobe tied behind my back.... "

Didn't know you were a RUSH fan CL or is it just a lack of originality on your part!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), May 02, 1999.

.....urp!.......

cani.......havanuthrrrrrrr.........

guiness.........??????......ohhhh.....

[kerplunk!]

-- Namby-Pamby (2000EndOfSanity@prodigitus.orgnetcom), May 02, 1999.

once again,the no-y2k people(needed for debate and entertainment)make no referance to SCADA in relation to banking.aren't SCADA systems involved with power and phone and therefore,banking?

-- zoobie (zoobie@zoob.zab), May 02, 1999.

[Andy makes good, serious points. I think they deserve a serious reply. Flaming doesn't address them very well [g].]

Greenspan said, about Banking, that 99% isn't good enough, it has to be 100%. Transactions need to be foolproof, they need to be accurate and trustworthy.

[This is very true, but requires further definition. We have a very large amoung of error-trapping and correction in place, and y2k is unlikely to introduce new types of errors. It is nearly certain to increase the rate of errors. Correcting these errors will slow the system down. The question is, how slow must the system become before there is any real economic impact? And this depends on the type of errors. If the 99% refers to the code (99% correct), this probably means a small impact. If it refers to transactions (99% correct) this is a disaster. It's a positive sign that many banks are currently engaged in inter-bank transaction testing. It may be possible to identify those banks who are the worst offenders and temporarily cut them out of the system. It may be that y2k errors tend to generate certain types of transaction problems, and these can be identified and dealt with separately. Information currently available strongly suggests that the number and importance of serious, chronic offenders within the banking system will be small enough to be manageable.]

Computers, in GENERAL, have to be accurate and trustworthy, as they ARE today (by and large).

[This is a good point. Yes, we have errors and always will under any circumstances. Nonetheless, the system is amazingly accurate. To minimize impact, we need to concentrate on error recovery procedures as well as error-prevention (remediation). We're doing this too. How manageable the inaccuracies will be next year cannot yet be determined in detail. This is discouraging at this late date, but not in itself a guarantee of failure. Unknown (to us) doesn't necessarily mean unknown to the banks, and it doesn't necessarily mean guaranteed failure either.]

In 7 months they will NOT WORK PROPERLY. All evidence points to this simple, but elusive (Yan?) fact.

[This is a religious assertion, requiring substantial suspension of disbelief. The vast majority of reports we've received (from Wall Street test, banking tests, FDIC, FFEIC, banking geeks, and banks themselves) all point to things working pretty well. Shouting that they won't work right doesn't make it true. The reason Andy's truth is so elusive is because it is flat contradicted by nearly every source of information we have. Nonexistent evidence IS elusive. It is indeed unreasonable to expect perfection, but we need to flat disregard almost everything we read to expect inadequate.]

Many banks worldwide will not cut it.

[Another religious assertion. Apparently this belief is based on lack of sufficient evidence that foreign banks are addressing the problem as assiduously as we are. The line of reasoning seems to be: We don't know what these banks are doing. Therefore, they aren't doing anything. Therefore, their computers will screw up badly. Therefore, these banks will fail. Therefore the system will fail. This line of reasoning is neither logical nor is it even kicked off with real data. So it's religious in nature.]

Therefore the Banking System by default will not either.

[And here we have the sudden, inexplicable jump from an unwarrented assumption to a foregone conclusion. Dr. Feelbad in action.]

There WILL be a cascading effect of unintended consequences hitting humanity in ways not yet even thought of.

[This is a safe bet, I think. The real world finds ways to tie things together that would shame Rube Goldberg. Our traditional line of defense against this combines intelligent reactions with long hours of hard work. This has been a successful technique. There seems an implicit assumption that either this technique won't be applied, or that it will mysteriously start to fail. This assumption isn't supported by anything but flat assertions.]

The situation in other areas of commerce is possibly not so severe - 100% may not, in most cases, be crucial for survival. But it certainly must be CLOSE to 100% - there is very very little carrying capacity in our JIT (tery) times.

[True enough. There will be winners and losers. We can reasonably expect screwups, and delays, and shortages for a while. How long, who can say? Whether we can adapt to them is another question. We will probably need flexibility and patience. But people are problem solvers, and they'll put this proclivity to active use. They'll find the suboptimal solutions for each problem one at a time. And this effort will be just as pervasive as the bug impacts.]

This is the bottom line - the US Government knew some time ago what was going to happen on rollover - their policy now is of total abdication of responsibility to the US people regarding contingency planning and emergency preparedness.

[This is an amazing statement. First, it assumes far more foresight on the part of government than anyone here (especially Andy) is willing to credit them with. Second, we have seen indications of contingency planning all around us. National Guard exercises. Preprinting of $50 billion in currency. NERC drills. Accelerated placement of large generators. Proposals of protective laws to preserve the business viability of those technology companies most likely to be most helpful in fixing problems. PR efforts to discourage bank runs. Active encouragements to prepare by FEMA and the Red Cross. This list is very long. How anyone could look at all this and describe it as 'total abdication' is beyond me. I can only wonder what contingency plans the government *could* put into place that Andy would find acceptable (and not a threat to our freedom)]

This is a fact for anyone to see.

[Another rhetorical technique. If your assertion is belied by all available evidence, claim it's an obvious fact. This is the Big Lie technique, and unworthy.]

Perhaps it was the best decision (not my view at all), 280 million souls cannot be mollycoddled by the behemoth that controls our lives now.

[Aha, here we go. If the government makes contingency plans, they're wrong. If they don't, they're wrong. But it's good to note that any such plans are necessarily limited. In the unlikely event that things are really bad, there is precious little the government could do even if their *own* systems were fully functional.]

Bottom bottom line - it's all up to YOU - take responsibility for yourselves, family and so on. The next seven months will be gone in the blink of an eye and then many of YOU reading this, and thinking, Andy's lost it, will be staring calamity in the face.

[Some of us might well be. It's been a real challenge to determine just what sort of calamity to prepare against. For most of us, resources are limited. Preparation against infrasructure failure consumes resources that might better be allocated toward preparing against an economic downturn (or vice versa). If we face significant inflation or deflation, preparing against either is totally inappropriate for the other. Appropriate techniques for becoming more self reliant (i.e. reducing the division of labor) are far from obvious, yet may prove worse than they problem they were intended to solve. This is why we're all here following (and thinking about) what's happening all around us. Just what sort of danger, and how serious, are we facing?

Andy projects a possible future which I feel well supported by neither the preponderance of the available material, nor by a logical thinking process. But my crystal ball doesn't work very well either.]

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 02, 1999.

I did not know that NERC and the Red Cross were government agencies.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), May 02, 1999.